Search My Blog

November 3, 2006

Pot: "Hey kettle, you're black."

This story is beyond shocking. The New York Times is complaining that documents released by the Bush organization, under pressure from Congress, via a website contain sensitive information. So now the NYT is worried about leaking sensitive information? Their hatred of Bush must really be blinding if they are allowing themselves to look like 1) Complete hypocrates, or, 1) Complete jackasses.

A very interesting sidebar to this story, and one the NYT probably didn't anticipate with this "Bush screwed up again" post, is that the NYT will now have to answer for their "There is no threat in Iraq" position. Whoops. Now they know how John Kerry feels after making a stupid remark.

The Captain's Quarters had some damning paragraphs directed at the Times that I also echo:
Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from power.

The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the Times figures this out for themselves.


  1. We both know that the NYT will spin this to their own ends. One of the benefits of being an extreme liberal, (extreme conservatives are just as bad,) is complte lack of accountability for their actions. Trust me, they will find a way to back-pedal out of this so that their readers can keep the blinder's of "convenient fact" firmly in place.

  2. Luckily, the Times has been hammered for this little stunt and people in the blogosphere pointed out all of the unintended meanings the NYT piece reported on.

    This was my favorite response to the piece. From LGF

  3. Thank you for your response Opinionnation and for the benefit of my two readers I will post the excerpt from Little Green Footballs that ON referenced in his comment.

    "Thank You, President Bush
    I’d just like to say “thank you” to President Bush and to the men and women of the US military, who—by the New York Times’ own admission—took out a terror-sponsoring regime in Iraq that could have constructed a nuclear weapon within months, as soon as sanctions were lifted enough for them to obtain sufficient fissile material."